The current community environment requires that individuals, whether alone or with others, take precautionary measures to protect themselves against personal assaults. Various personal safety devices are available, including firearms, stun guns, chemical sprays, and audible alarms.
While firearms, when accessible and handled properly, are good deterrents against an aggressor carrying out a personal injury or assault, carrying a firearm can be unattractive to individuals who oppose the possession and use of firearms, or who are generally intimidated by firearms. In addition, the idea that a death may occur in the event the firearm is used may also make individuals uncomfortable who would rather choose a less deadly form of deterrent. If a firearm is chosen as a personal safety device, many jurisdictions require registration of the weapon and, if the firearm is to be carried on the person, a concealed weapons permit must be obtained. The registration and permit may subject an individual to personal scrutiny, including having their name published in lists of firearm and concealed weapon permit applicants, which may be discomforting and discouraging to some people. In addition, there are numerous environments where firearms are not permitted including airport and other public forums.
Alternative personal protection devices such as chemical sprays (e.g., MACE.TM. and pepper sprays), audible personal security alarms, and stun guns, when used properly, can have a deterrent effect on an aggressor without the dire consequences of a firearm. However, such devices can prove ineffective in certain circumstances. For example, while stun guns may be effective in warding off aggressors, the aggressor must be reasonably close--within arms length of the victim--such that both prongs of the stun gun can be brought into contact with the assailant; use of a stun gun can be difficult if the assailant is physically overpowering or stays too far away.
Chemical sprays and audible alarms offer an advantage over stun guns, because the assailant does not have to be in contact with or physically as close to the victim (although the assailant must be reasonably close to use chemical sprays effectively). However, if the assailant becomes aware of the user's intention to use chemical sprays and the assailant has sufficient time and space to move away from the victim, he or she may avoid the spray or prevent the spray from directly contacting sensitive areas of their body. Consequently, the chemical spray may be ineffective.
Similarly, if the assailant is certain that no one will come to the victim's rescue when an alarm sounds (e.g., in larger metropolitan areas, alarms are continually sounding, and citizens have become so use to hearing alarms that they do not readily or rapidly respond), or wherein the victim is out of audible contact with other individuals, the audible alarm alone may be insufficient to stop the attacker's aggression.
Finally, a problem with any of the above-mentioned deterrent devices, is that they may not be readily accessible if they are carried in a closed bag or pocket into which the victim cannot reach or if the bag has been removed or is held closed by the assailant. Accordingly, there is a need for a total safety protection device that incorporates multiple safety deterrents. To be effective, the device must be readily accessible, activated with minimal effort and movement, and the removal or activation of one safety device should preferably activate other devices, thereby eliminating steps needed to use both devices so that the devices can be effectively deployed by a victim in a minimal time.